https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204525 A duty demand based on alleged non-exempt fabric processing was not sustainable because the Revenue failed to produce specific, verifiable evidence of disqualifying operations. The record did not show any confirmed discrepancy in the D3 declarations, any identified lot of fabrics subjected to unrecorded processing, or supporting examination of intermediary records. The Tribunal noted that suspicion from ancillary charges could not substitute for proof of clandestine manufacture or ineligible processing, and that stentering was not shown on the technical material to be indispensable for the relevant man-made fabrics. The exemption claim therefore remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204525 A duty demand based on alleged non-exempt fabric processing was not sustainable because the Revenue failed to produce specific, verifiable evidence of disqualifying operations. The record did not show any confirmed discrepancy in the D3 declarations, any identified lot of fabrics subjected to unrecorded processing, or supporting examination of intermediary records. The Tribunal noted that suspicion from ancillary charges could not substitute for proof of clandestine manufacture or ineligible processing, and that stentering was not shown on the technical material to be indispensable for the relevant man-made fabrics. The exemption claim therefore remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204525